Article 13 EU

Yes, US “””social””” networks, “””media””” and “””entertainment””” are what is absolutely shit and I’ll be glad if I never get to see it again

Am i the only one who hopes that they implement this and all american companys just declines traffic from europe!

Just imagine how fast the EU would repell these laws if
Google
Youtube
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon
Ebay
Microsoft
Apple
Dropbox
and all other companies that handle user uploads
plus thousands of non european small forums, sites and servers that dont care about europe just blocks it.

#[insert your country here]exit

Attached: 40357117_1112206168933370_7051296975268690728_n.jpg (640x640, 49K)

But article 11 would apply to Jow Forums in a major way...

Where's the source for this?

This doesn't make any sense. Pro-(((copyright))) is a completely (((neocapitalistic))) move by the EU. It can only benefit the (((US))), if anything.
The ones benefiting from this are large companies, news websites and EU politicians.

They can't even stop piracy you dumb fuck

Just because they cannot stop things doesn't mean that they can't make the internet a much shittier experience.

So... No difference at all then? Ty user, but please remember, no harsh language here on advertiser-friendly 4channel

Attached: MillaisJE_Ophelia.jpg (2720x1500, 1.59M)

Can someone tl;dr what this even is? When I see banners on YouTube and Wikipedia I just instantly tune them out

They don't have to stop it. They penalize it in Germany and some countries. You get charged 800-2000€ for torrenting.
Either way, with tor/i2p/freenet/IPFS, they can't censor anything or stop piracy. Killing the clearnet just means that """dark"""net will evolve more rapidly.

Article 13 would require all non purely educational (i.e. wikipedia) websites over a certain size to introduce an automatic filtering system that would remove allegedly copyrighted content. Worse still is that it would be the companies themselves that would be legally responsible for any copyrighted material that make it onto their site.

There's also mind-numbingly dumb shit like a tax on linking to news articles.

Article 11 - Preview/Link Tax
Sites which offer a preview for a link linking to a site can be taxed by the linked site.
This was made so that the news sites can still earn money if people don't click a link to their articles which would lead them to the site. Since a lot of people don't open the articles and just read the title and the preview description and image. It's not big of a deal.

Article 13 - basically a more strict DMCA
Currently, if a site hosts copyrighted material you can report the material itself to the site owner and the owner must remove it (example, report a video on Youtube for being a full episode of Pokemon which wasn't uploaded by Nintendo). No harm done to the site, and the user who posted the copyrighted material is punished. In this case Nintendo can sue the user as the site isn't responsible for the content, the user is.
But, with Article 13, the sites would have to prevent copyrighted material to be uploaded in the first place. This means, you as a user shouldn't even get into a situation where you're able to post copyrighted material. Under Article 13, the website owner is the one responsible and not the user. So in the scenario above, Nintendo cannot sue the user but can sue the site owner (Google, in this example).

Both articles are actually very good for the consumers and only the big companies are getting penalties. Which is why you get so much paid shilling against them.

>Both articles are actually very good for the consumers and only the big companies are getting penalties.
kill yourself

Why does my country have highest abstaining

>both articles
Article 13 only, actually. The first one is irrelevant.

Spotted the Google shill. Kill yourself.

>Both articles are actually very good
In what way is it good for consumers having hosting sites become so restrictive that basically any user content will be blocked out of fear of legal action?

And don't give me some bullshit that it won't happen, because we already know how responsible the likes of Sony and other scumfucks are when it comes to false flagging and other abuses of copyright law to further their own ends. It's is going to happen and the only people that stand to profit from it are said scumfucks that will be given a virtual free monopoly.

No one really cares. Websites can just ip range block the EU.

C'est toi, Emmanuel?

>not getting access to one of the largest markets in the world is inconsequential

Attached: 1495969101248.png (645x729, 77K)

>restrictive
All they have to do for article 11 is choose to not display previews on links. That's literally it. If a user decides to manually upload an image preview nobody will know unless someone actually reports that user. In which case the user isn't penalized, the site is. So it's not anything that will harm users. The worst thing that can happen is you getting banned on the site. If anything this will just mean people will move to places with encrypted chats or distributed servers.

As for article 13, same shit. Copyrights, patents and intellectual property ALREADY EXIST. This is not a fight against or for those things, nor is it a fight against or for free speech. This is just a decision to penalize web hosts themselves instead of users. That's literally it.
Article 13 protects the users themselves, and will have no negative effect on piracy or communication.
>without a13
>upload a movie to youtube
>gets taken down, you get tracked down, you get a fine, you're demoralized and less likely to upload a movie again
>
>with a13
>upload a movie to youtube
>case 1:
>(fail because copyright checks)
>nothing happens, or you move to an alternative site
>case 2:
>(success, you've bypassed the copyright check somehow)
>movie gets taken down, youtube gets a fine, you don't give a shit and will just upload the movie again if you're not banned, if you are banned you'll move to an alternative site

The ONLY thing better than Article 13 would be a complete removal of copyright/patent/IP laws and having everything unprotected and in public and fair use domain as it should be.
Sites are already as restrictive as they'd be under A13. DMCA exists, you know. Users are already penalized for sharing things they "shouldn't" by all major websites and you don't see a relevant number of people abandoning platforms over this. A11 won't have any impact, A13 will just put some extra stress on certain websites.

Way to dodge the question and hark on about the same absolutely idiotic sentiment of "So it's not anything that will harm users". Listen here you fucking idiot, if ever user upload is a gamble to companies then they'll simply not allow you to upload. So it does in fact harm the user, because it doesn't exist in a fucking vacuum.

And what sense does it make to penalize the companies? In what other instance is it the proprietor held responsible of a crime simply for haven taken place on their property?

So I'll ask again, how does the consumer benefit by companies inevitably making their requirements for uploading content significantly harsher?

How does it benefit the consumer to have hosting platforms potentially becoming unprofitable for any but the already well established market players?

On behalf of the Bulgarians I want to say that I am sorry for our politicians. Many of us want to behead them but the country is too shit for a massive movement. Until the paid shills can be beheaded you can shit on us all you want.
Also the moment article 13 goes into action any terrorist actions against the EU are morally right.

>how does the consumer benefit by companies inevitably making their requirements for uploading content significantly harsher?
By not being penalized for sharing what they "shouldn't".
You're already not allowed to post a lot of stuff and these articles add nothing new. So again, in this case consumers won't be the ones that are punished.

>unprofitable for any but the already well established market players
It won't be profitable for those either since they'll constantly be under a radar and have the highest chance of getting penalized, which means their power will reduce and thus allow a bigger gap for new and potentially more secure platforms.

>they'll simply not allow you to upload. So it does in fact harm the user
Except that's exactly what's already happening and been happening for years, are you retarded?

Is this the article that means usenet is over and out because providers become responsible for what's on their servers?

>good for consumer
Imagine the following:
>run pomf clone to let other share screenshots
>someone screenshots some copyrighted shit and uploads it
>you get v&
How is this good for the consumer? Even if somebody uploaded CP you wouldn't get into trouble (at least not in theory, in practice you could still get v& but they'd have no case against you after finding out you were hosting a public service). So that means it's not safe to run pomf.se clones anymore. Ok, now everyone running them fucks off because they don't wanna deal with this bullshit. Where do you upload your shit now?
Now extend this to everything else. Youtube's contentid is relatively good but can be trivially defeated by e.g. mirroring the video, slightly speeding it up or slowing it down, etc. And it's highly prone to false positives - which youtube can't be bothered to fix because it would be very hard and they have no interest to do so. Now under these new rules every mirrored video is a liability. How draconian would their filter have to become? How much will the false positive rate shoot up?

And that's youtube, a service offered by a multibillion dollar company (multi hundred billion, in fact, I'm pretty sure). Take an average sized host. How are they doing to manage this? Let's take disqus, which is used on tons of smaller websites and allows users to upload pictures in comments. It's not a gigantic company. And the website that use it tend to be tiny. Neither have the capacity to fine-tune a copyright ID system that doesn't involve quasi-banning image uploads due to false positive rates.
Don't forget Jow Forums: do you really think gookmoot will care about any of this? Right now it's the user's liability and since it's very hard to trace users minor offenses like piracy aren't being prosecuted anywhere. Once hiro is the one liable to pay up he'll sing a different tune.

tl;dr: false positives will rape any capability to upload stuff.

lol fuck off niggerfaggot 4channellers

What do these percentages say about EU states? Who are the cucks, who are the chads?

regulation is good for you goy

Hail Brexit

>run pomf clone
You're not the consumer then
>Where do you upload your shit now?
Torrents, IPFS, freenet, i2p.

Shill detected

t. low IQ

there's no way they'll pull it off in the scale they're suggesting. this being said, i'm gonna mail merkel a copy of 1984 and some werthers

hail poverty

These regulations only sediment even further the monopoly of tech giants. Do you think a small company has the money and resources to develop a filter for uploads like Google and Microsoft do? The PhotoDNA and all the face-recognition algorithms being developed over the last years weren't made for no reason, they had this kind of legislation in mind.

But at any rate, I couldn't care less if some YouTuber isn't allowed to post is reaction to some stupid shit, I would rather watch youtube videos about other things. If this means the death of web 2.0 I welcome it.

what does the eu offer to the west at all digitally?

It would not apply to Jow Forums at all because no part of Jow Forums is hosted in Europe. Jow Forums is not obligated to follow EU law. Hell, the entire reason why the site is allowed to have loli content on /b/ is because all of our servers are in a single state where there are no local laws making it illegal.

NON-US LAWS DO NOT APPLY TO THIS SITE, AND THEY NEVER WILL.

If the EU sues though then the US is likely to cooperate, which is why all the US sites had to deal with GDPR

>By not being penalized for sharing what they "shouldn't".
This has got to be the singled dumbest thing I've heard in a good while. You break the law, you get penalized. That's how it works, there's nothing mysterious about it and people most certainly don't need nor want overbearing legislation to "help" them be more lawful.

If anything, this just shows how horribly broken intellectual property laws are.

>It won't be profitable for those either
And you don't think this is a problem? Should the all of Europe really have to suffer even less of a competitive edge against the rest of the ever more competitive markets, just because the French can't stand the thought of an American company?

>Except that's exactly what's already happening and been happening for years
Ah yes, so making it even worse is an improvement. Because as we all know, two wrongs makes a right.

>if the EU sues
With what jurisdiction? In what court? Say they tell Hiroyuki he's being sued, and he needs to come to a court in the EU. He says no thank you. They fine him, he doesn't pay. What then, do they jail him? He hasn't broken any US laws, nor has he broken any Japanese laws. He's completely untouchable.

>the US is likely to cooperate
Why would we?

>which is why all the US sites had to deal with GDPR
Most of those companies aren't US-only like Jow Forums is. They have servers physically present in other countries to ensure data is delivered fast. This is not the case for Jow Forums. We have ALWAYS been hosted exclusively in the US -- intentionally so, since most countries ban loli.

>Article 13 passes
>no more frogposting and wojakposting
>we can go back to text boards and the discussions would improve tenfolds
how is this bad again?

>Why would we?
For international relations. It's not a given, of course, but the EU is large enough that it's not unlikely.
>Most of those companies aren't US-only like Jow Forums is. They have servers physically present in other countries to ensure data is delivered fast
So that's why multiple companies rangebanned EU IPs? So their EU servers wouldn't connect to EU residents and break the law?
Or maybe it was because they were US-only and had almost no business from EU visitors, but were afraid that Uncle Sam would sell them out if they broke EU law by allowing EU residents to visit their data-hoovering website?

Neither are copyrighted sweaty

Attached: 1540214423395.png (1442x1436, 710K)

it's the retarded net neutrality hysteria all over again

Don't pretend hiro won't just block any and every image instead of filtering

>Killing the clearnet just means that """dark"""net will evolve more rapidly.
comfy vision tbdesu

He's more likely to just rangeban Europe.

Not going to happen, he might block image uploads from EU in worst case

europoors don't spend money anyway. 80% of my customers are from the US. and I'm running a business in europe. fuck europe and eurofags

>article 13 means memes are banned
You're retarded. The memes getting banned was just a fucking propaganda made by big companies to convince normies into thinking article 13 is bad. Memes are not under a copyright.

>article 13 would force all online platforms to police and prevent the uploading of copyrighted content
>article 11 stipulates that companies like Google, Facebook and Microsoft may have to pay publishers for showing snippets of news articles.
Not gonna lie, and I hate to align with Google on this. But that's fucking stupid. Copyright law itself is fucking stupid
This would just make it harder for companies to start up. Google, Facebook, twitter will be mostly unaffected by it, in comparison to duckduckgo, gab, and other underdogs
Even Google doesn't have a good enough content id system to guarantee no copyright material passes. You can resize, flip, shrink, distort (speed up/down), to your hearts content and get past their content id. And there's too many pieces of data that are similar to each other that it's difficult to tell (even for humans)

I can't wait for it to pass, just so 95% of companies to not implement it, and everyone realizes how weak and stupid the EU is

Giant parasite scientific publisher that steals money from taxpayers and provides zero economic utility funs massive copyright bill because butthurt.
It’s exactly as bad as they say it is.

based

This will put extra stress on every website that allows user content.
It'll create an even worse environment for consumers because they are only then stuck to sites that can already afford to put into place a copyright check, or afford to pay fines.
Literally wanting to suck Google cock for life.

Have you actually read the proposed article?

If you upload copyrighted material illegally you should be held responsible for it. Why would you ever expect the man who provides the service to be responsible for you misusing it? Further personal responsibilty lifted off peoples shoulders. Truly disturbing owning one of these platforms and suddenly being held accountable for the few shitty people abusing the freedoms youre offering. At best this will slow down uploads, generate stricter policies/algorithms, and ultimately mean a worse service provided to the average consumer.

by that logic you should also be responsible for consuming that copyrighted material as well, just as much as the person trying to share it, since there'd be no infringement if no one was around to consume it
imagine if you got slapped with 10k fine each time some copyrighted material ended up in your computer while browsing a site
you're suppressing content creation by making the content creators liable for copyright infringement
in fact, there should be no such thing as copyright, all it does it suppress creativity and increases wealth inequality. without copyright, no one would be liable for infringement, not the creators/uploaders, not the servers/hosts, not the clients/consumers. literally everyone is happy in the end

Yes, if you are consuming content illegally you should be punished for it. It's not a victimless crime... money, time, and effort go into the production of these mediums and a profit is expected. Simultaneously your consumers regularly getting fined 10,000 dollars for somehow encountering copywritten material on your site will spark exactly what this article is trying to accomplish anyway minus the coercion. The odds of innocent people getting caught up in something like this and being forced to pay such an exorbitant fine don't seem high to me either.
I don't see how I'm quashing content creation by suggesting people are held accountable for breaking the laws. If there is no countermeasure to thievery you're suggesting every creator lower themselves to a beggar taking donations because payment would be optional.

OR perhaps you're right and copyright law is the wrong way to go about it and if these content creators don't want their work stolen they should invent or invest in research for more secure methods of distribution. How would you solve this issue while maintaining the integrity of the content creators and their right to profit from their efforts?